[AdamB]

Would you prefer I had simply said "Plant is so stupid he/she/it can't be bothered to read their own provided references prior to lying about what they said" when you were pretending that Dem's were bailing dead people out of the morgue?

You've totally lost your mind now.

I'm not the one who claimed the Dems bailed a dead guy out of the morgue. Any reason you haven't issued a retraction on being that ignorant of your own references yet?

[AdamB]

A few questions:
345 billion barrels technically recoverable.
How much does historically get recovered from such an estimate?

Depends on the particular rock characteristics, but in clean sandstones primary recovery is 30%, give or take. But in shales, you recover far less on primary recovery across any larger area,, i.e. not just single well examples.

The good news is, look what the US was able to do with some smaller amount in terms of price and geopolitical knock on effects, besides making peak oilers (domestic or international) look as ignorant as some of us were claiming 15 years ago.

What is the EROEI?

As with discrete accumulations, it is irrelevant. Oil isn't produced based on eroei, but whether or not you can make money on it.

And 345 billion sounds like scraping the bottom sludge in the bucket when thinking about the allotment of conventional oil available in 1950s especially when taking into account improved extraction methods and newer finds.

All of the oil produced from shale in the US has been sweet crude, ranging from a light medium grade into light. No slude found, as it turns out that isn't the kind of oil you produce from solution gas drive reservoirs.

[theluckycountry]

All you need to know about tight oil is that it made tons of money for wall street and the owners of the companies involved but nothing for the investors or the nation as a whole. Was it a success for the nation like the oil booms of 20th century? No! Instead you got Greater poverty, lower standards of living, more and more degradation of the nations infrastructure. The exact opposite of what the conventional oil boom brought. It was a con job from day one. It's not even worth looking into unless you want to short the companies involved.

[AdamB]

All you need to know about tight oil is that it made tons of money for wall street and the owners of the companies involved but nothing for the investors or the nation as a whole.

The geopolitical benefits have been immeasurable. Insignificant backwater countries hanging on to the monarchy's skirt wouldn't know anything about that.

As far as investors, provincials apparently missed the American news that US E&Ps are happily paying back invesotors with boatloads of cash.

It's not even worth looking into unless you want to short the companies involved.

Thank goodness you don't run the investment portfolio in any significant country. Because when some half wit wants to stop the dividends from rolling in, makes you wonder if they are qualified to offer investment advice to African bushmen.

[Tanada]

All you need to know about tight oil is that it made tons of money for wall street and the owners of the companies involved but nothing for the investors or the nation as a whole. Was it a success for the nation like the oil booms of 20th century? No! Instead you got Greater poverty, lower standards of living, more and more degradation of the nations infrastructure. The exact opposite of what the conventional oil boom brought. It was a con job from day one. It's not even worth looking into unless you want to short the companies involved.

I wouldn't agree with that, north of 100,000 new oil field jobs were created with all that money being spent in the economic system of North America. Less foreign oil was imported to North America with also benefited local economies on a broad scale. Yes the delivered petroleum was expensive but on the scale of the continent the benefits were simply huge for the working class people who A) worked in the new oil developments or B) worked in the industries who supplied goods and services to the oil fields and the people working there. Housing, food services, medical services, entertainment services and many other subsidiary economic delivery systems greatly benefited from all that money being spent in North Dakota and Eastern Ohio and Louisiana and Texas and so on and so forth.

[theluckycountry]

I wouldn't agree with that, north of 100,000 new oil field jobs were created with all that money being spent in the economic system of North America. Less foreign oil was imported to North America with also benefited local economies on a broad scale.

100,000. In a recession it's not uncommon to see millions of jobs lost so 100,000 hardly constitutes a Boom does it. And sure, lots of towns saw their standard of living rise, just like lots of towns near silicon valley did with the IT boom, or military towns when Regan went max on the military, but it didn't change America in a fundamental way like the cheap oil of the early to mid 20th century. The tight oil came out of the ground at $70 a barrel+ not $2 a barrel. And yes you had to import less but the margin of profit on the tight oil was so slim it left nothing after all the sand and chemicals were paid for.

Like I said, no new highway networks across the nation, no big lift in the standards of living like created the middle class. once you parse out all the marketing hub hub It was a faint echo. Like SpaceX is a faint echo of the glory days of NASA. In 20 years time when there is no SpaceX base on the moon or "Starship" en-route to Mars that will be obvious, but today everyone is believing Musk's hype so it's game on and up goes the share price.

[Plantagenet]

A new report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts that the world will be at peak oil by ca. 2028-29.

IEA predicts peak oil occur by 2029.

Thats consistent with what I am predicting as well......I feel good to see the IEA joining me in my prediction that GLOBAL PEAK OIL WILL HAPPEN IN THE 2020s, and hopefully we'll get to peak oil before 2029 in order to reduce global CO2 emissions.


the International Energy Agency (IEA) just predicted that the world will be at peak oil by ca. 2028-29

Cheese!

[AdamB]

A new report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts that the world will be at peak oil by ca. 2028-29.

IEA predicts peak oil occur by 2029.

Anything in there where they explained why they had declared global peak oil in 2006 instead? I mean, they waited 4 years until 2010 to declare peak oil in 2006 just to be sure.

Thats consistent with what I am predicting as well......I feel good to see the IEA joining me in my prediction that GLOBAL PEAK OIL WILL HAPPEN IN THE 2020s, and hopefully we'll get to peak oil before 2029 in order to reduce global CO2 emissions.

But 16 years ago Plant said....

I saw Prof. Deffeyes speak in late 2005, just after he had just predicted peak oil was reached about Thanksgiving 2005.I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production.

"Scientifically accurate"...how about you just shoot for remembering your own fairytales? Found any Dems bailing cadavers out of morgues lately?

Maybe you were just impressed? Another undergrad babysitting PhD storyteller in geology except from a top flight university, sprinkling knowledge and guidance on high to local yokels trapped in nowheresville academia?

[Plantagenet]

The scientists, economists, and engineers at the IEA agree with me, and while I don't read his posts I predicted in advance that Adam would disagree with the scientists, economists, and engineers at the IEA and with me.

And once again my prediction was 100% correct. I'm right again!!!! Its uncanny!!!!

Clearly I'm getting pretty good at this prediction stuff.

Having the IEA come out in support of my prediction makes me even more confident that my prediction that the world will reach peak oil in the 2020s has some validity to it. Of course I originally based my prediction mainly on data showing tight oil production from the Permian and other tight shale oil basins was bumping up against its peak, and the IEA is basing their prediction on the concept of falling oil demand, but both our predictions include all the wider factors affecting of the global oil market, and thus we'll both be right if peak oil happens in the 2020s.


I now repeat my magnificent prediction that the world will reach peak oil in the 2020s

Cheers!

[AdamB]

The scientists, economists, and engineers at the IEA agree with me, and while I don't read his posts I predicted in advance that Adam would disagree with the scientists, economists, and engineers at the IEA and with me. And once again my prediction was 100% correct. I'm right again!!!! Its uncanny!!!! Clearly I'm getting pretty good at this prediction stuff. Having the IEA come out in support of my prediction makes me even more confident that my prediction that the world will reach peak oil in the 2020s has some validity to it.

But you didn't predict that you had already predicted it 16 years ago? Did you forget?

I saw Prof. Deffeyes speak in late 2005, just after he had just predicted peak oil was reached about Thanksgiving 2005.I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production.

So when did the memory begin going? Before retirement when you were predicting peak oil with Deffeyes, or after retirement when you began imagining Democrats were bailing dead people out of morgues?

[Plantagenet]

Wood-Mackenzie---the oil consultants---- predict global peak oil will happen in the early 2030s.

peak-oil-demand-early-2030s-wood-mackenzie-

The IEA predicts global oil production will peak at ca. 103 million bbls per day in late 2020s, while Wood Mackenzie sees production peaking at 108 million bbls per day in the early 2030s.

That quite a big discrepancy.

Wood-Mackenzie is assuming oil development and production will continue more or less the same way it has in the past.

Personally, I'm less confident that will happen.

I think global warming is accelerating now to the point that it's impossible to ignore. July 2023 is the hottest month in the last 120,000 years, and August 2023 maybe even hotter.

And next year will be hotter still....same with every year after that....hotter and hotter.

At some point even Joe Biden and the other morons in the US government are going to have to something about global warming.......and that something is going to involve reducing oil production.


At some point even Joe Biden and the other morons in the US government are going to have to something about global warming.......and that something is going to involve reducing oil production

Cheers!

[mousepad]

At some point even Joe Biden and the other morons in the US government are going to have to something about global warming.......and that something is going to involve reducing oil production.

I'm wondering what you think should be done. Your graph not only shows oil, but coal and gas, too. All need to be reduced, significantly and fast. I give kudos to people for trying. But personally I think there's nothing that can or will be done as our standard of living directly depends on those 3 fuels. And luckily there's nothing we need to do either, because mamma nature will step in and take care of it for us.

[Plantagenet]

I'm wondering what you think should be done. Your graph not only shows oil, but coal and gas, too. All need to be reduced, significantly and fast. I give kudos to people for trying. But personally I think there's nothing that can or will be done as our standard of living directly depends on those 3 fuels. And luckily there's nothing we need to do either, because mamma nature will step in and take care of it for us.

I agree with you 100% Mousepad.

I think that ship has already sailed. I think the planet is already blowing through tipping points and is now on an unstoppable path towards really extreme global warming.

IMHO the scientists did a god job warning the world about global warming, and the UN did a good job setting up the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change way back in 1992----32 years ago-----to craft a UN treaty to reduce global CO2 emissions.

The problems arose when the politicians got involved. International treaties require buy-in by world leaders, and the politicians failed to do their job.

When the first UN international climate treaty was negotiated in Kyoto Al Gore supported the Chinese in their demands that China not be restricted in the amount of CO2 they could produce. And since then Chinese CO2 emissions have exploded to the point that they are about three times greater than USA emissions now, and still growing rapidly.

Then Obama personally went to China and India before the Paris accords and signed agreements guaranteeing China and India more time to emit unlimited amounts of CO2. And in the Paris Accords themselves, there are no restrictions on their emissions or on anybody else's emissions.....it's all voluntary.

The result is predictable....CO2 emissions continue to grow rapidly in India and China and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere continues to increases and global warming goes up and up.

Obama must have known this would happen when he supported unlimited CO2 emissions for China and India----one can only assume Obama either didn't understand that global warming is caused by CO2 emissions or he didn't give a flying #$%$ about climate change or he was getting a cut of the millions of dollars China was paying to Hunter and Joe Biden.

I don't see any way to fix things until the Paris Accords are replaced with a new UN climate treaty that actually requires global CO2 emission reductions, which was the original plan of the UNFCCC back in 1992.

Even if we get to peak oil by the end of the 2020s, as I expect, it won't stop CO2 emissions because China and India are building more and more coal-fired power plants every year.


China is by far the largest CO2 producer on earth because they are building so many coal-fired electrical power plants.

Cheers!

[theluckycountry]

Accords and treaties are worthless and can be broken for any number of reasons. The solution is obviously a collapse in the financial system. People who are broke don't drive cars, or use a lot of electricity, or demand a lot of consumer products. The whole system globally is ripe for the collapse, a falling leaf could trigger it. It will begin at it's appointed time and there will be no recovery like after the GFC. It will be the depression we had to have, the Great Reset, you will own nothing and be happy.

The World Economic Forum, a controversial international organization headed by billionaire Klaus Schwab, is now saying that “life doesn’t have to be happy, or even meaningful” to be good. Rather than having a happy and meaningful life, the WEF believes that individuals could have a good life through “psychological enrichment” instead.

https://valiantnews.com/2022/06/world-e ... %20instead.

According to the WEF, who referenced a psychological study by American Psychological Association’s Psychological Review, living a “psychologically rich” life with hardships was “important because it ‘makes room for challenge and difficulty. It’s not just about ‘everything going well and smoothly.’”

Psychologists say a good life doesn’t have to be happy, or even meaningful
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/psycholo ... 39369.html

And just for laughs
https://valiantnews.com/2023/07/vegan-i ... n-reports/

[Plantagenet]

The solution is obviously a collapse in the financial system. People who are broke don't drive cars, or use a lot of electricity, or demand a lot of consumer products. The whole system globally is ripe for the collapse, a falling leaf could trigger it. It will begin at its appointed time and there will be no recovery like after the GFC. It will be the depression we had to have, the Great Reset, you will own nothing and be happy.

Sure.

Or we could have a real pandemic next time, with much higher death rates. The Black Death in the middle ages had a death rate of 30-60 percent, and there is no reason we couldn't have something like now, especially if Dr. Fauci and the Chinese are going to continue their experimental efforts to create more and more deadly viruses.



Losing 30-60 percent of the human population would also "solve" the CO2 emission problem.

Cheers!

[

[mousepad]

I don't see any way to fix things until the Paris Accords are replaced with a new UN climate treaty that actually requires global CO2 emission reductions, which was the original plan of the UNFCCC back in 1992.

Give me more than your obsession with some treaty.
How specifically would you reduce co2?

[AdamB]

I don't see any way to fix things until the Paris Accords are replaced with a new UN climate treaty that actually requires global CO2 emission reductions, which was the original plan of the UNFCCC back in 1992.

Give me more than your obsession with some treaty.
How specifically would you reduce co2?

Plant would stop globe trotting, using planes and ships to burnish her individual CO2 super emitter credentials. But Plant won't do that because face it, after you retire don't you think after being locked away in Alaska for most of your life that you should get out and see the world a bit? Hard to blame her for wanting to get hers while she still can. Other than the than knock on faux concern for the environment.

[theluckycountry]

Give me more than your obsession with some treaty.
How specifically would you reduce co2?

Plant has already revealed that

The Black Death in the middle ages had a death rate of 30-60 percent, and there is no reason we couldn't have something like now, especially if Dr. Fauci and the Chinese are going to continue their experimental efforts to create more and more deadly viruses. Losing 30-60 percent of the human population would also "solve" the CO2 emission problem.

And of course it would, but such things can get out of hand and the wrong people can get caught up in the process

[AdamB]

Give me more than your obsession with some treaty.
How specifically would you reduce co2?

Plant has already revealed that

Polluting as much as she can as fast as she can has certainly been revealed. She has pix. At least your 2 legged ride is somewhat renewable.

[Plantagenet]

US Oil execs predict oil prices are going to $90-$100 bbl, and that will result in an increase in US oil production to record levels in the Permian basin.

us-permian-has-not-yet-seen-peak-oil-production-occidental-ceo

So far so good.

One would naturally expect US oil production to rise as oil prices rise, and thats exactly what we are seeing happen.

That is very good news.

We can now confidently say that as of August 2023, we definitely haven't reached peak oil in the Permian basin.


Here is a blast from the past.....here is a plot made years ago of various predictions of when global peak oil will occur. Note that only three of the predictions called for peak oil to occur AFTER 2030.....and the IEA made one of those three but has now changed its prediction to put the peak at the very end of the 2020s. I suspect the US has also changed its prediction, but most likely the saudis still see oil peaking after 2030. We'll have to wait and see who was right. But right now we can say that that most everyone in the oil biz agrees peak oil will definitely occur .....even the Saudis.

Cheers!